portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements oregon & cascadia

economic justice | government

HOW TO VOTE?? Measure 29 Constitutional Amendment--Pension Liabilities

is it best to vote "yes",

or "no"

on this one?
anyone know?

pros and cons--

please post them here.
Refinancing measure 29 position 11.Sep.2003 16:21


My take is that it is all about allowing the state's PERS (public employee retirement system) debt to be refinanced at (hopefully) lower rates than current obligations. The debt is already owed at 8% interest. State wants to use cheaper general obligation bonds so must be voter-approved.

The official voters pamphlet on statewide measures has more details, but I am leaning to a yes myself FWIW.

If anyone knows anything else I should know about the issue, please speak up!

Vote No, look a bit deeper 12.Sep.2003 14:38


The legislature is selling it as a way to reduce interest rates on PERS obligations. That may be true enough, but the reality it that it is not a one-time authorization. It will enshrine within the state constitution numerous loopholes to allow politicans carte blanche borrowing.

It says pension debt, not PERS debt. So it could be used in the future for any other pension liabilities.

There is no realistic debt ceiling. Section 1, Paragraph 2 links the ceiling to "one percent of the real market value of all property in the state." What is the logic in that? It's not even specfic -- that could mean every piece of property, public or private. If this measure is for PERS, why not link it to PERS liabilities?

Along those same lines, there's no sunset clause. Why would we put this in the constitution forever if it's only designed as a one-time fix for PERS?